Average ascent per mile

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

a typical flat ride around here (Cheshire) covers 1,614 feet in 52.5 miles (that was my last ride, rigged for distant not height)
my last mtb ride was 14.5 miles & 2,228 feet of climbing - derbyshire area (154 feet per mile)

for the rides I have recorded the height for, I seem to average around 45 feet per mile which probably explains why I am not very good at climbing hills anymore!

 

[nickyboy]

a typical flat ride around here (Cheshire) covers 1,614 feet in 52.5 miles (that was my last ride, rigged for distant not height)
my last mtb ride was 14.5 miles & 2,228 feet of climbing - derbyshire area (154 feet per mile)

for the rides I have recorded the height for, I seem to average around 45 feet per mile which probably explains why I am not very good at climbing hills anymore!

aaah, what a dream that would be!
Standard issue around here is about 100ft/mile. As you can see from the veloviewer signature I'm at 91ft/mile this year as I've had a couple of cheeky Cheshire runs while the weather was particularly bad.
I am still rubbish at climbing hills mind you, I just get to be rubbish more than most

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

aaah, what a dream that would be!
Standard issue around here is about 100ft/mile. As you can see from the veloviewer signature I'm at 91ft/mile this year as I've had a couple of cheeky Cheshire runs while the weather was particularly bad.
I am still rubbish at climbing hills mind you, I just get to be rubbish more than most

gets rather boring to be honest. I hate short sharp inclines, much rather have a decent mountian and several thousand feet decent and a good view! much more fun than these short buggers that take it out of you in your granny gear and leave you feeling like you have only climbed a few feet (usually only 60-70 feet) with no view to show for it!

 

[Shut Up Legs]

One mountain I rode late last year, as part of the 7 Peaks Challenge, is Mt Baw Baw (east of Melbourne), and it's simply brutal. The distance / climb ratio for this one is 13! . Although it doesn't meet the total climb requirements, it's considered to be a hors categorie climb because of the very high average grade. The views at the top are worth the climb, though . I'm really glad I did that one using my 8kg road bike instead of the 15kg touring bike: this was actually only my 2nd ride on the new road bike, too, and demonstrated how good it is for climbing.

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

I have been thinking about this thread today and been looking at my current formula I use. I think I need to factor in other data to get it more accurate. The way I now see it I have three inputs: Distance (miles, converted to feet), elevation gain (feet) and heart rate (bpm) (effort) leaving me with one output: speed (mph). I have now calculated my performance in % using these. This makes each of my rides comparable with each other not just based on speed alone. I have used:

=sum(1)-(((distance in miles x 5280)/elevation gain in feet) / (average mph*average heart rate) It seems accurate enough as the equation needs the elevation gain to match the distance travelled to score 100% performance.

Does anyone else calculate their performance somehow ? I'd be interested to see how you do it.

 

[HLaB]

On yesterday's Kentish Killer I was 99.6ft/mile, whereas for the year to date its just 35.6ft per mile (Ive not got access to my total stats at the moment) I guess I was higher up until July last year, I think I need to get some hill climbing practice.

Just remembered to look at my GPS rides and I only 44.9ft per mile and I suspect it is falling all the time; I better do some hill reps before the Cairngorm Sportive & Mini Marmotte (maybe its a good thing the full route was sold out).

Edit I realised I had turbo and roller rides in there, even taking that away I'm only 45.3ft/mile

 

[Ningishzidda]

I have been thinking about this thread today and been looking at my current formula I use. I think I need to factor in other data to get it more accurate. The way I now see it I have three inputs: Distance (miles, converted to feet), elevation gain (feet) and heart rate (bpm) (effort) leaving me with one output: speed (mph). I have now calculated my performance in % using these. This makes each of my rides comparable with each other not just based on speed alone. I have used:

=sum(1)-(((distance in miles x 5280)/elevation gain in feet) / (average mph*average heart rate) It seems accurate enough as the equation needs the elevation gain to match the distance travelled to score 100% performance.

Does anyone else calculate their performance somehow ? I'd be interested to see how you do it.

I've got eighteen years worth of Audax brevet cards in a filing cabinet. Unfortunately, not many are from Altitude Award points scoring rides.
When I joined AUK in 1994, the first 200 I rode was The Castleton Classic, which was advertised as 2500 m of climbing because Beryl did a 'contour count' to ascertain the upward elevation riding.
This year's is listed as 2963 ( how accurate? ) and is by digital terrain data.

2500 m of climbing in 218 km in 1995 earned ZERO points. In 2013, it is 3 points.
In 1995, the route went up the long drag from Leek to Buxton. It was 4.4 km of upward rising 225 m. That's a Cat 2 !

How could a ride with a Cat 2 climb in it score ZERO Altitude points?

In 1995, I was told "It hasn't got many hills in it, cus its got no AAA points." Now, the Castleton Classic can be seen on the calendar as a 3 pointer, indicating it DOES have hills.